An 1831 discussion on New Public Management

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present an argument supporting the view that the ideology driving the notion of New Public Management (NPM) is not a new or recent aspect of public sector financial reform. Rather, back in the early nineteenth century, significant public discussions were exploring the pros and cons of various financial reforms based on this ideology. The research approach taken in this study is based on a semi-fictitious conversation created between key early nineteenth century public commentators, Sir Henry Parnell and Sir Samuel Bentham. The conversation is constructed through a reflection of the key themes and perspectives presented in Sir Henry Parnell’s pamphlet ‘On financial reform’, first edition published in 1830, and Sir Samuel Bentham’s 1830 letter in response titled ‘Financial reform scrutinized’.

Accounting history in diverse settings - an introduction

“…Accounting helps in exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the financial reforms based on NPM (Bowrey et al, 2017), where the proposed debate between the two politicians passes through the consideration of the effects that reforms may have, illuminating the nineteenth-century origins of some contemporary ideas. One of these ideas is public sector reform.…”

“…Although two articles (Bowrey et al, 2017; Nikidehaghani and Hui, 2017) deal with the public sector, the individual setting of the articles are nevertheless ‘diverse’. The introduction of public welfare programmes that have played a central role in providing support for the disabled in Australia since the early twentieth century are the subject of, and form the setting for, the article by Nikidehaghani and Hui (2017).…”

“…The study by Bowrey et al (2017) examined the beliefs associated with the notion of New Public Management (NPM) which have led to the adoption of private sector processes and practices in the public sector. NPM principles are guided by the idea that the operation of public sector organisations could be improved if private sector values such as cost-effectiveness and operational rationality, placing the sector on a more business-like footing and fostering a more competitive environment and by shifting the culture to one of managing for results (Bowrey et al, 2017), were increasingly focused upon. The ‘diversity’ of the studied setting is reinforced by the semi-fictitious conversation between key early nineteenth-century public commentators, Sir Henry Parnell and Sir Samuel Bentham.…”

“…In particular, this is based on the perception that the private sector can deliver certain services more efficiently than the public sector (Guthrie, 1998). From the evidence provided by Bowrey et al (2017) in their article, the idea behind the commercialisation of the public sector and managing for results is almost 200 years old. Evidence of the perception that the public sector is inefficient when compared to the private sector is been traced to the first half of the nineteenth century by the authors who draw on Parnell’s (1832) introduction to The Exchecker which states, ‘the forms by which business is carried on in this office are antiquated and absurd’ (p. 138).…”

“…Evidence of the perception that the public sector is inefficient when compared to the private sector is been traced to the first half of the nineteenth century by the authors who draw on Parnell’s (1832) introduction to The Exchecker which states, ‘the forms by which business is carried on in this office are antiquated and absurd’ (p. 138). The analysis provided by Bowrey et al (2017) in their paper provides evidence that the privatisation of the public sector is contentious and ideologically driven, rather than being based on the benefits or strengths of the private sector or weaknesses in the public sector. The author’s call for those responsible for public sector reform not to be fixated with the perceived benefits of private sector practices, but rather explore alternative approaches which are more in tune with public sector ideals.…”